Assuming this hypothetical cruiser is the Jeanne d'Arc, 5.8 days would be a fair guess. French response times in such a scenario are difficult to imagine -- much depends upon what the French would be willing to commit and where those vessels were when they were committed. Neither Martinique nor Papeete are insanely distant from Clipperton, but both could be said to be prohibitively distant.

Well....I guess I should feel some shame in wanting to steal a whole island from someone....but I'll just have to bear it! It probably won't come down to stealing anyway. We will, I'm sure, be more than willing to negotiate with France for the island. She will, no doubt, understand, since she is the "Mother of Liberty". We can make it a win/win situation. We just have to get our foot in the door and then make it too big and heavy to remove without a lot of effort and deleterious publicity.The floating city provides for just that. An infrastructure that is quick and complete. If we had to land, dig foundations, transfer materials, bring in labor to build, provide power/water/food for builders, that takes time and the French could be at our doorstep. We would be able to see them coming of course. We would have to contract with a satelite service to watch for them. Anyone know how fast a cruiser can cover 4,000 miles?I'm not sure that the Mexican government would respond to pressure from France in regard to the use of Mexican fishing boats, since they have not listened to France's protest about Mexican fishing around the island. Eventually we will have to license and control the fishing, but that might make for good revenue. Plus if we could sell necessities to the Mexican fishers it would extend their possibilities in the fishery.I think Mexico would be among the first to give us some recognition. If things went well between the Commonwealth and France and the rest of the EU I can see recognition there also.The island is 8 degrees, I believe, from the equator, which makes it an excellent place to launch satelites from. China or the S. Koreans might pay for the privledge. The US couldthen be somewhat friendlier. The US is not anxious to have the Chinese anywhere near the western hemisphere. But really they would have to treat GLBT people within their borders better to get anywhere. Something we have been kicking around and haven't resolved as yet is a name for the inhabitants of the GLCK. GLuCKers has been mentioned. But I feel that to be somewhat undignified. As you can imagine that could lend itself to some epithets that should not be Commonwealtherners is too cumbersome, Gayles (Gales) but that may have historical confusion. My favorite is Passionates....since the island was initially named Isla de la Passion. And really....aren't we all "Passionate(s)" at heart? Any more ideas?Also this floating city should have a name. This "Venice of the atoll". I've promised Mogul a street or canal as it were...will be named after him!

You know, there are two ways to obtain property: one can either steal or buy it.

Another factor is desirability. People defend what they want -- and they do so to the degree that they want it. Undefended land is unwanted land (and for a reason). No one will be stealing very much prime Real Estate, though they might be able to make off with an undefended wasteland here or there. The same applies to purchased land. You will find the wastelands somewhat more affordable than land that has some use. Land which is for sale is inherently unwanted, at least in comparison to the degree that the money is wanted. Rather than seek out some undisturbed pocket of the world, I am inclined toward occupying land quite independently from any claims that might already be made for it, then democratically seceding. Here too, it is a whole lot easier to outnumber (and outvote) the local population if that population is vanishingly small to begin with. It would be easier to enact such a scheme in some place that few sane people wish to live than it would be in some place where people compete for the opportunity to live there in the first place.

As a direct consequence, it is impossible to completely escape a certain Utopian mind-set. Whether one is inhabiting some distant island or some province in Europe, the entire scheme depends upon the new owners being somehow more clever than the old owners ever have been, and it hardly matters whether the land is 'stolen' or 'purchased.'

"Wet" places to live have always proved problematic. Can one live on a lagoon? Of course.

We have poured over maps and charts looking for an alternate to Clipperton. Or rather not necessarily an alternate, but a place to colonize next, AFTER Clipperton, and there are none that are not claimed. France and Australia have some sub Antarctic islands, but none really suitable. Some have active volcanoes, others have such cold climates and hurricane force winds much of the year.

You know, there are two ways to obtain property: one can either steal or buy it. Clearly, for the desired property to be stolen it is very fortunate if it lies dormant and unsupervised at some distant location... From that point of view Clipperton is absolutely a very suitable candidate, agreed. On the other side, the more anxiously guarded areas can be purchased for money - their added economic value might quickly overweight the initial investment.

But what I'm getting at is that the Mexican boats go out EMPTY. They would be willing to transport materials for us.

That is certainly very good for transportation of supplies. Should it be possible, a proxy purchase of some of such fishing enterprises would be extremely usefull, just for the case the Mexican government suddently decides to pressure the native owners.

Sorry I didn't reply to this area sooner. I see it has been quite a while since your post. The "mechanism" of how threads and topics post and their order is, in my unworthy opinion, somewhat counter intuitive.But on with the topic here....We have poured over maps and charts looking for an alternate to Clipperton. Or rather not necessarily an alternate, but a place to colonize next, AFTER Clipperton, and there are none that are not claimed. France and Australia have some sub Antarctic islands, but none really suitable. Some have active volcanoes, others have such cold climates and hurricane force winds much of the year.So they are even further from us being able to transport needed materials to. Plus there is little chance of using solar power to sustain a settlement.Master Mogul had reservations about shipping and transport to our putative Clipperton settlement. I don't remember if I told him that four of us had driven from Mexico City to a port on the western coast of Mexico, called Mechanilla (I think that is close spelling) to look at logistics. It is a third rate port to be sure, but the closest to the island. Transport will be easier than you may think. There is a Mexican tuna fishing fleet there. Indeed they fish in the area from the Mexican mainland to Clipperton waters. France, in the past, has protested this use of the 200 mile economic zone by the Mexican fishermen, to no avail. So that tells one how briskly they may come against us. But what I'm getting at is that the Mexican boats go out EMPTY. They would be willing to transport materials for us. We asked. At first they thought we were drug people!But we told them we were just interested in doing a geological survey at some point as cheaply as possible. But the possibility is there.As for transport of refugees to the island. Cruise ships and other merchant ships travel a "sea lane" not all that far from the island. Traffic comes out of the Panama Canal and if it is going to Japan/Asia goes near the island. The DMX expedition of 2000 saw several cruise ships as they neared the island.The island is also located near enough to winds that blow generally toward Mexico north of the island and south of the island they blow the opposite way Mexico to Clipperton.I think eventually we should have our own fleet of hybrid vessels diesel/electric/sail to serve us.A harbor is still a problem for the island. If we re-open the lagoon we lose our fresh water. Perhaps dividing the lagoon would be the answer. One part salt water harbor, the other fresh water. We may even be able to use the tidal fluctuation in the part that would communicate with the Pacific to generate power.The most exciting idea has come from Mogul. That is to build the city ON THE LAGOON, not on the island. This solves a problem for us. City infrastructure could be constructed cheaply in Mexico on large barges and towed to the island and then pulled over the narrow island down into the lagoon. To those of you that think this is impossible, I assure you it is not.In New Orleans, Katrina drove huge barges out of the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi two miles inland. They were dragged and winched that far back to the water. Plus there is very little bigger than a shrub growing on Clipperton. There iare one or two groves of coco palms. Most is coral sand elevation approximately 6-10 ft at high tide. Surf runs up to 25 feet sometimes depending.But such a city developing quickly is to our advantage. In addition the lagoon is not like the reefs surrounding the island. It is virtually devoid of life, save for large mats of algae. Remember it is fresher than sea water and the ocean makes for a formitable barrier to the introduction of fresh water species.

Having been away for awhile, reading many of these debates is quite enthralling. As for Jaix's position on Clipperton, much good luck to you. I, too, am for the island approach, although I think there are better ways than trying to persuade selfish and very egotistical France with the idea of separating itself from Clipperton, even though that isle can mean virtually nothing to the mighty French empire (sarcasm intended).

Another option would be to populate an unpopulated island somewhere (much like the Clipperton and "Heaven" ideas), although the location would have to meet a nearly unfathomable number of prerequisites. Among them are not only the basics - water, arable land, access to the rest of the world, possibly some infrastructure. Add to that that in order to truly succeed, the island would truly have to be somewhere no government cared about in the least, which means it would likely be uninhabitable to begin with. Desirable places waiting to be shanghaied really are rare; if you know of any where you are absolutely positive that ideal conditions exist and absolutely no government interference or resistance is likely, please speak up now! Add to the basic needs already listed the need for funding, the ability to publicize and convince GLBT brethren to move there and establish a state from the ground up, not necessarily relying on idealism alone (since idealism is nice but does not fill the belly). And add to those the need to be prepared for disease, possible wildlife attacks, poisonous flora and fauna, as well as infighting and unrest among those moving there.

And realize the sheer immensity of funding such any such project will require! At present, we here have not been successful in the least at even raising sufficient funds here to cover our own relatively puny operating expenses. Most everything you see and read here comes from the pockets of a very few benefactors, primarily Mogul (and, formerly, myself). Barring a major win in some huge lottery system somewhere, I hold little hope for the idea of being able to acquire the base territory and infrastructure needed to quickly and easily establish the ideal starting point for a gay homeland.

It is true that there are sufficiently wealthy GLBT people on this planet and that if some of them could be convinced to part with a small part of their inherited or amassed personal wealth, we might well be on our way to being able to establish an actual colony or first homeland, but this belies the fact that these individuals move in circles where their wealth opens every door for them, enables them to be oblivious to the plight of those oppressed and persecuted brethren, and enables them to ignore the rest of us except when we are needed for some trivial or sexual task. I doubt that asking someone of the stature of, say, a Hormel, for a sizable contribution to a fund for acquiring and establishing a gay colony will meet with more than a snicker or a polite letter telling us we are all mad or worse.

I still feel the preferred method to proceed would be to actively migrate to a nation which may not welcome us with open arms, but will also not chase us away, once they see the investment a gay colony or community could bring. Once any colony has been established successfully, similar tactics to those proposed in the original story here (voting to take over a town, then a county) can be implemented quite effectively and quickly, with stealth and surprise being of serious tactical advantage and a basic key to success. Once such a toehold has been established, with suitable coaxing, advertising and diligence, the colony could expand, buy more land if needed, and eventually actually embark on the process of secession. If the chosen host nation is suitably weak or disorganized (I'm thinking here of a Central American state, for example, such as Belize, for example), an attempt to secede is unlikely to be seriously challenged by more than rhetoric. The key remains a suitable location, adequate fund raising, publicity and actually following through.

By the way, if anyone really does care, it would be nice to see some of those aforementioned operating costs defrayed by donation. Mogul will be happy to tell you how to make one...

Well, with sufficient ressources on our side, the Gay State could be put practically anywhere on this planet - the international community has proven very tolerant to the use of military force anyway. The problem is, of course, that we do not have the ressources and therefore settling in Somalia or Columbia would, no doubt, indeed have a very tragic end. We must consider therefore the "where to start?" question in first line.

It is of course possible to start occupation of Clipperton (or other empty island) just now, but what for? It is not very probable that any single refugee can find his way to Clipperton by his own means, therefore we need marine vessels to bring our people there - at least from Mexico. Furthermore, we would need operational bases in transit countries like Turkey if we want to pick up our refugees there and transport them over Mexico to Clipperton. I suppose it is clear to you, that such an elaborated system might be easily judged as humane trafficking, should France insist on its rights over Clipperton - and it would probably do so unless we manage to achieve an agreement first. France might not bother to send war ships to Clipperton, but it will certainly initiate steps against all individuals involved in organizatory structures, and it is certainly not in our interests to loose our leading people even before we got started.

It seems clear to me that we must first solve our organizatory problems before we can approach the territorial question at all. The territory is a means to achieve our real goals, namely saving refugees and influencing international politics in our sense. Even if France decided to leave Clipperton to us, would we be actually able to achieve our goals? We must find our way to the hearts of gay folks before.

WE have poured over the world map looking for 'fertile' ground for a Gay State.Some have mentioned places such as Somalia or other failed states.

The Commonwealth has generally discarded such places for a number of reasons.

1)† In Somalia the Muslims are more than likely going to be VERY hostile to any Gays taking a chunk of tribal or warlord territory.

2)† They only have to walk, hike, stroll with a few grenades and machine guns to work us a hardship

3)† †On the world stage, taking land from indigineous peoples can be a real public relations problem

4)† †We would surely HAVE TO TAKE IT!

So we are pretty solidly set on Clipperton.

No hostile natives, we know a group can live there, hard for people to get to you, France (Mother of Liberty) is probably not as violent as say a teed off Somali warlord.† Plus French Polynesia is having stirrings of a probably successful independence movement.† They will most likelynot want a fairly worthless chunk of coral.† Or even if France keeps Clipperton, it has little interest in it practically.France had detailed plans in the 80's to rehab the island, very practical well thought out, but concluded it was not economically feasible becauseit was tooooooo inacessable for tourists to get to.One of our peoples endearing traits is that we move into "fixer-uppers" and voila!† Real estate prices go up.

But a military force is not in our plans, other than a civil protection and assistance corps (police)Since this is a very different venture than any other, we want to at least not start out with the same mistakes as the nation states.

The initial situation is somewhat different, isn't it? I think our situation is somewhat more of the jewish diaspora, probablly even more of the Order of Malta if solely gay separatists are concerned.

The initial situation was effectively quite different.But the result was wholly the same,wether we talk here about what constitutes the western part of nowaday`s Poland or of the State of IsraŽl.We both know how the territories concerned were acquired by their present owners.The said territories were not without previous owners,the ones who fled in panic and never returned.

My idea of the genesis of a gay independent State was always based on the demise of some previous existing State,not on its consent which then won`t be necessary.A scenario more or less on the lines of the East Prussian,Pomeranian or Silesian one (vintage 1945) as benefited to Poland in its present boundaries.People who know their history shall understand what I mean here.

The initial situation is somewhat different, isn't it? I think our situation is somewhat more of the jewish diaspora, probablly even more of the Order of Malta if solely gay separatists are concerned.

My idea of the genesis of a gay independent State was always based on the demise of some previous existing State,not on its consent which then won`t be necessary.A scenario more or less on the lines of the East Prussian,Pomeranian or Silesian one (vintage 1945) as benefited to Poland in its present boundaries.People who know their history shall understand what I mean here.

Ron, thanks a lot for the highly interesting compillation of articles - an insightfull lecture this was, indeed.

"Rajneeshpuram exemplifies both the best and the worst of modern cult phenomenon.† The collective activity of the commune residents gave rise to the greatest intentional community experiment the modern age has seen.† In an article in The New Yorker, journalist Frances Fitzgerald detailed some of the accomplishments the commune had managed by 1983:† cleared and planted 3,000 acres of land, built a 350-million-gallon reservoir and 14 irrigation systems, created a truck farm that provided 90% of the vegetables needed to feed that Ranch, a poultry and dairy farm to provide milk and eggs, a 10 megawatt power substation, an 85-bus public transportation system, an urban-use sewer system, a state-of-the-art telephone and computer communications center and 250,000 sq. feet of residential space."

There are/were various colonies projects around the world, both successfull and failed, but this one is very interesting because it was attempted in USA of 1980, a country with effective legal system. It is remarkable that the Rajneesh movement found so many followers in the US so that they were able build up a city inmidst of a desert within few years. Why did they eventually fail? Probably it is because they were building a community politically isolated from the US legal system, a notion which was inevitably to induce conflict with US authorities. Probably they would have more chances for success if they tried to implement the project in India from beginning.

The lack of internal discourse and missing democracy have certainly contributed significantly to the failure of the project - showing that a community is better built on decentralisid affection among citizens, rather than on a personal cult. A vital community wouldn't fall apart if the persons on top were arrested or killed, because in a healthy society new leaders of sufficient competences would pick up the responsibility. It might be convenient for a leader to contemplate himself indespensable, but he better makes sure there are people who can replace him in case of necessity.

It is clear that communities/colonies in existing countries can have only such an extent of rights as the local jurisdiction allows them, therefore any attempts to gain "political control" over a city or town is a risky enterprise with limited prospects. The political options of a city council are very limited, and never expand into spheres of immigration or legislation on criminal punishment. Even a singular state of Massachussets which allows same-sex marriages is unable to override US-federal legislation on taxes or immigration - with the effect that binational gay married couples still have little chances to live together in the USA. Therefore, even if spacially separated gay communities in straight majority countries are still a very favourable solution for gay cultural developement, we shall always keep in mind the very limitations of this approach.

Some prominent examples of mislead and failed movements are the "Colonia Dignidad" in Chile, and the Aum Shinryoko in Japan, the latter making the mistake of attempting to become a state within a state without just negotiations.

The successfull example of making the best out of circumstances is the Tibet Government in Exile which achieved a contract with the government of India for accomodation of all refugees and establishing all necessary infrastructure without some "formal secession" from India.

Even should there be no population in a place,that place will nevertheless and at normal times be the part of some already existing State.We stand zero chance of establishing a State of our own in a place still defended and administered by another State.We might have a better luck in a geopolitical vacuum,where a State has disintegrated [..]

This is true. But it is also true, that even if the Gay State were established and posessed some territory "rightfully", there always would be other states/organizations eager to take advantage of its territory or natural ressources, or simply to eradicate it from the face of the planet. It is therefore essential that the Gay State is able and willing to defend its interests in an armed conflict - whether in a "geopolitical vacuum" or against some other state(s). Certainly, any organisation must carefully evaluate its own strength and choose realistic options only. It is understood that in the current situation any attempt to secede by force a piece of territory from some well-going state would result in a senseless massacre. On the other hand, if we had the personell and the money, we could take over responsibility over a piece of Somalia which exists as state only on paper, and I am sure there would turn many opportunities even in the next few decades. The real problem is therefore not the lack of "geopolitical vacuum", but solely our own inability to organize and gather ressources for this purpose.†

There is a peculiar and widespread belief that there is no space left on Earth to move to. This is manifestly untrue. There are many places in the world where very few people live. There is, of course, often a very good reason why no one has chosen to live there. As one can plainly see from these two examples,† there are many reasons why such projects fail. That there is no space left on Earth is not one of those reasons.

Oh yes, most people look onto their school globus and see the borders clearly dividing the planet's surface into states and they think that there is no free place anymore to put a new country on it. Most of the disputants being somewhat youthfull and not much informed on what is actually going on in many regions of the Earth, they gently ignore the fact of fall and rise of empires and moving boundaries. A fair collection of prejudices can be found here.

The most striking argument was that one is in first line "American" and only then gay. I certainly acknowledge the right of a gay person to remain an American, but what make the American identity more legitimate than the Gay identity? In a country where almost everybody is an immigrant of various ethnic origin and color, and with XX% of the population practically not speaking the official language at all, the (undoubtedly existing) common identity is a product of purest artificial construction! If this isn't the best proof that we can create our own identity as a people, what is?

There is plenty much free space on this planet, and the only difficulty to find a solution to our territorial question will be located on the field of diplomacy and subsequent military strength. Initially, there will be two ways to go: first seeking recognition as non-territorial souvereign entity by some friendly country (if necessary, "money for frienship" can be an option), and second renting/buying territory for large embassy and/or military base. The territory in question might remain under the formal souvereignity of the host country, while at the same time the contracts clearly stating that our own jurisdiction applies for the term of the contract. Such a solution for the initial period would enable us to accomodate certain amount of refugees and build up our military forces. It is clear that the host country will be an absolute taboo in the subsequent discussions about a state territory, as it is out of question that we can assault the few friends we would have. Such a semi-territorial solution would be of course not entirely satisfying, but it would establish a de-jura souvereign entity with a de-facto control over a sufficiently large piece of territory, while elegantly helping the host country out of a "face-loose" situation by reserving the possibility to terminate the contract with an appropriate cancellation period (say, 99 years). As gay people usually do not have descendancy and will be anyway immigrating into the gay city-state we are proposing, there will be sufficient time either to solve the territorial question once for ever or to make a new contract somewhere else. The Gay State shall be rather rich in worldwide organization and be able to shift its posessions from one country to another. It is of course highly recommended to keep good relationships to the countries where one's money is deposited, whereas playing sinking ships with foreign countries would be a very bad idea.

We can indeed learn very much from the Souvereign Military Order of Malta - and our primary task will be to organize properly and to find at least one country or a "stable de-facto regime" which would recognize us and allow us to establish a however small embassy under our jurisdiction. With modern technologies (and sufficient funding, of course) we could effectively offer living space and offices for hundreds to thouthands citizens even as a "non-territorial" entity. Once recognized as a souverign something, it will be solely up to us to grow financially and personally, and look out for a territory whenever an opportunity turns out - in the ideal case through negociations with a poor and less-populated country. Taking over responsibility during a chaos phase somewhere might be an option as well, though many would find it a less attractive idea.

Even should there be no population in a place,that place will nevertheless and at normal times be the part of some already existing State.We standzero chance of establishing a State of our own in a place still defended and administered by another State.We might have a better luck in a geopolitical vacuum,where a State has disintegrated,when no other one has yet replaced it,and in circumstances where a high level of organization on our side may allow us to prevail against unorganized people.We cannot destroy an organized hethro society on our own.In that later respect,the job of tearing down a society and causing the downfall of a State - thus making way for another - will for the most part find itself in the hands of the heterosexual population.Most organized societies and States established by heterosexuals and in history haven`t and won`t last.We might be impressed by such societies,particularly by such modern Empires like for example the United States,but we shouldn`t.The Roman Empire,from the time of Emperor Constantine,outlawed homosexuality.The Roman Empire is now history,whereas we still exist.

Spare a moment or two for a brief fable, a parable, a fairytale if you will. In 1981 some rather controversial people paid altogether too much money for an otherwise undesirable ranch. This group was not without it's difficulties. Ultimately they failed. What has become of their endeavors is here. Another version of the fable, this time told by the victors, is here. Like many small groups, they have been inspired to install a small bronze plaque. They well deserve their modest monument. The weapon of choice may have been the democratic process, but the town did suffer a coup d'etat. They did indeed survive what was indeed an invasion. Though I fail to see where they prevailed because of their own actions. The flaws of the invaders were many, and fatal. The population of Wasco County is still quite low.

The entire affair brings to mind Alpine County. The 2000 census found that there are two gay couples living there now. The fable of Alpine County is much shorter, and lacking in details. This is because it never actually happened. Bits of the project can be dug up here and there.

Quote

As the movement grew in size and power, debates on strategy and tactics occurred, most dramatically between those gays who wanted to withdraw into separate ghettos, and those who wanted to enter mainstream society. The most extreme proposal was made in California by Don Jackson, who suggested establishing a gay territory in California's Alpine County, about 10 miles south of Lake Tahoe. It would have had a totally gay administration, civil service, university, museum -- everything. The residents of Alpine County were not pleased with the proposal. But before the situation turned really ugly, Jackson's idea was abandoned because of lack of support in the gay community. In the end, the movement concentrated on integration and civil rights, not separatism.

GLF member Don Jackson had proposed that some two hundred gay men and lesbians should move to the tiny community of Alpine County, California, register to vote, and then take control of the local government.

Jackson's plan was to proceed quietly, but that was not Kight's style. In short order he and fellow GLF member Don Kilhefner were calling press conferences to announce the new "gay Mecca." The story received nationwide coverage but also drew a lot of hostility, and the plan never went forward. Kight's heavy-handed tactics caused a rift between him and some other leaders in the gay rights movement, but he never stopped working in the way that he thought best.

There is a peculiar and widespread belief that there is no space left on Earth to move to. This is manifestly untrue. There are many places in the world where very few people live. There is, of course, often a very good reason why no one has chosen to live there. As one can plainly see from these two examples, there are many reasons why such projects fail. That there is no space left on Earth is not one of those reasons.